DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wnukowski (US 2021/0137134 A1) in view of McMindes (US 2007/0269583 A1) found in applicant’s IDS filed 12/01/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Wnukowski teaches a process for producing a soybean seed protein concentrate (provide isolated proteins in concentrated form Par. 0011; soybeans Par. 0049; third solid fraction Fig. 2)
a) providing a press cake from soybean seed (pressed to produce oilseed cakes Par. 0055)
said soybean seed being at least partially dehulled before being pressed (may be subjected to dehulling prior to processing Par. 0053)
b) washing said press cake by mixing it with a first aqueous solution to obtain an aqueous-washed soybean seed meal (extracting solid cake using a first solvent Par. 0040 Fig. 2; first solvent is an aqueous solution comprising salts and optionally further additives Par. 0060)
wherein said first solution comprises more than 90% w/w of water (first solvent comprising at least 90 wt % of water Par. 0040)
c) washing said aqueous-washed soybean seed meal by mixing it with a first alcohol solvent to obtain a first alcohol-washed soybean seed meal (adding a second solvent to the protein concentrated in step d wherein second solvent comprises alcohol Par. 0043)
wherein said first alcohol solvent is a hydrous or a non-hydrous alcohol and has an alcohol concentration which is above 75 % w/w (second solvent comprises at least 90 wt % of an alcohol being miscible with water at room temperature Par. 0043)
d) separating said alcohol-washed soybean seed meal from said solvent to obtain said protein concentrate (separating mixture into a second liquid fraction and a third solid fraction Par. 0044).
Wnukowski does not teach that the first aqueous solution is acidic.
McMindes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches washing using an aqueous acidic wash (Par. 0067). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the timing of filing, to modify the invention of Wnukowski with the acid wash of McMindes. One would have been motivated to make this modification to remove soluble carbohydrates (McMindes Par. 0067)
Regarding claim 2, Wnukowski further teaches said soybean seed are kernels (may be subjected to dehulling prior to processing, removal of pods and outer coats of seeds Par. 0053).
Regarding claim 3, Wnukowski further teaches said press cake is obtained by cold pressing said soybean seed (cold pressing Par. 0055-0056).
Regarding claim 4, Wnukowski does not teach the pH of acidic wash of step b) is adjusted to range from 3.5 to 5.2.
McMindes further teaches the pH of acidic wash of step b) is adjusted to range from 3.5 to 5.2 (aqueous acidic wash having a pH of from about 4.3 to about 4.8). ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the timing of filing, to modify the invention of Wnukowski with the acid wash pH of McMindes. One would have been motivated to make this modification to remove soluble carbohydrates (McMindes Par. 0067).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wnukowski further teaches said process comprises only one acid washing step (Wnukowski, first solvent only used once, for step b Par. 0018).
Regarding claim 6, Wnukowski further teaches said first alcohol solvent is a hydrous, a non-hydrous or an azeotrope mixture of alcohol (second solvent comprises an alcohol being miscible with water at room temperature Par. 0043).
Regarding claim 7, Wnukowski further teaches said first alcohol solvent is ethanol (alcohol is ethanol Par. 0075).
Regarding claim 8, Wnukowski (Currently Amended) The process of claim 1, wherein step c) of said process is repeated no more than once (second solvent only added once, in step e Par. 0023).
Regarding claim 9, Wnukowski further teaches the proteins to be concentrated are not dissolved during said process (first extraction steps b-d, protein present in solid fraction Par. 0022; second extraction steps e-f, protein in solid fraction Par. 0024).
Regarding claim 10, Wnukowski further teaches a drying step (subjecting solid fraction to vacuum drying, spray drying, superheated steam drying or combinations thereof Par. 0027). Though Wnukowski teaches drying of an isolate which is a product of a third solvent extraction step, it would have been obvious for one to use the solid product of the second solvent extraction as the product and applying the drying to that product.
Regarding claim 17, Wnukowski further teaches the temperature of the soybean seed during the cold pressing shall be maintained as of 80°C or less (cold pressed at <70°C Par. 0104).
Regarding claim 18, Wnukowski further teaches said first alcohol solvent is an azeotrope (96% ethanol Par. 108 step 8; aqueous solutions Par. 0014). As seen in Pg. 10 lines 12-18 of applicant’s specification filed 12/01/2023, an aqueous mixture of 96% ethanol is an azeotrope. Wnukowski teaches a second aqueous solvent with 96% ethanol, therefore it teaches an alcohol solvent which is an azeotrope.
Regarding claim 19, Wnukowski further teaches said ethanol is at a concentration of 96% w/w (second solvent with 96% ethanol Par. 108 step 8).
Regarding claim 20, Wnukowski further teaches hexane is not used (process performed without hexane Claim 14).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wnukowski in view of McMindes, further in view of Hildebrand (“11.1 Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]”).
Regarding claim 16, Wnukowski teaches the limitations of claim 1. It further teaches soybeans (Par. 0049), but does not teach the soybeans are from Glycine max L.
Hildebrand, in the same field of endeavor, teaches soybeans with the species Glycine max L (Pg. 1 Section 1.1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to choose the species of soybeans of Hildebrand in the invention of modified Wnukowski. One would have been motivated to make this modification to select a vegetable protein with protein efficiency ratios approaching that of skim milk (Hildebrand Pg. 1 Section 1.1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 5712703475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792